...on that defecting Iranian general:

According to the report, the missing Iranian general was carrying documents and maps of Iran's military and intelligence infrastructure as well as information regarding the relations between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hizbullah and the Islamic Jihad.

In addition, the general was reported to possess information regarding the Iranian nuclear program as well as information about Iran's strategic military plans.

Emphasis mine. If true, it will make it a lot easier to take out the key facilities at minimal cost and collateral damage.

This appears to be a major break in our struggle with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. It would be nice if it also presaged a more general rebellion within the ranks, and the populace itself.

[Mid-morning update]

It's a quagmire! More insurgent attacks. In Iran.

Perhaps.

But as I recall, during World War Two, the British ran a great intelligence operation in which a dead body was dressed up in a uniform and left so the Nazis could find it. And chained to the body's wrist was a satchel filled with documents and maps that purported to reveal important information about British forces and plans. All fake.

= = =

Uranium enrichment is hard to get right.

If the Iranians cannot get those centrifuges to work, goading us into bombing a non-productive facility at least gets them a propaganda victory within the Islamic world, in exchange for all the money spent on the facilities.

If we employ a military option, I hope it is with airmobile infantry doing a "smash, grab and nab" operation. Why? Bomb damage assessment after a conventional JDAM strike will be ambiguous at best and first use of tactical nukes would be an enormous geo-political blunder for the United States. In my opinion.

Let me qualify what I'm about to say with this. I think thus far the war has been mishandled. We should have gone stronger and harder earlier on. We should have made better plans for the Iraqis to take over. OK, but lets just suppose...

The Iranian defector comes to the U.S., they get tons of info from him, we HAVE to share intel with our allies, Iran now gets invaded by yet another willing and knowledgeable coalition force (Gulf War II Rev 1.1), we find that the Iranian military and nuke infrastructure is nowhere near as advanced as its been "reported", we kick out the Islamofacists in charge.

Now several things could happen from that scenario,

Scenario 1: with Iran under control, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan drop off, and GWB is still a bad guy because U.S. Troops get killed in a war for oil...

Scenario 2: with Iran under control, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan go up, and GWB is still a bad guy because U.S. Troops get killed in a war for oil...

Scenario 3: with Iran under control, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan drops off, we find and kill Bin Laden and GWB is still a bad guy because U.S. Troops get killed in a war for oil, because we should have been able to kill UBL ages ago...

but here's what will probably happen:

because of GWB's dwindling poll numbers and indecision, and even though the Iranian defector comes to the U.S., and they get tons of info from him, we will still HAVE to share intel with our allies who will print it in the newspaper, Iran won't get invaded by any new coalition force (Gulf War II 1/2 fizzle) because there will be no concensus at the U.N., we'll never find whether the Iranian military and nuke infrastructure is big, little or ready to launch, the Islamofacists will still be in charge and will denounce the defector and his stolen intel, and the Israelis will wind up being the only ones fighting or Israel will ultimately wind up being a radioactive glass paved parking lot!.

But to be sure, no matter which scenario plays out and even though this fight has been going on for thousands of years, and has in modern times been flaring up again and again since 1948, the whole problem in the Middle East will be because of GWB.

But as I recall, during World War Two, the British ran a great intelligence operation in which a dead body was dressed up in a uniform and left so the Nazis could find it. And chained to the body's wrist was a satchel filled with documents and maps that purported to reveal important information about British forces and plans. All fake.

Easy to do with a dead guy. Not so easy with a live one.

McGehee, that depends on whether we trust our intelligence services to do effective interrogation.

I retain my suspicion that Ahmed Chalabi (and "Curveball") were Iranian sponsored agents who told this Administration exactly what they wanted to hear about Saddam, in order to induce regime change, in order to permit Shia ascendancy in Iraq.

It all depends on whether this general is a legitimate defector or a wannabe Iranian James Bond, telling us lies. Once this guy has a high media profile, what are we going to do, execute him?

the whole problem in the Middle East will be because of GWB.

This reminds me a an adage I once heard: "Don't step in the Microsoft!"

Steve, we haven't got enough infantry to occupy and control Iran. Seize suspected nuclear sites long enough to "smash, grab and nab" and then get the heck out of Dodge? Sure. And if we choose a military option that is the best one, IMHO.

Europe help? No way. Putin would cut off their natural gas.

Great Britain? Nah. Australia? Maybe a few thousand troops. Not enough to make a difference.

A popular uprising? I cite:

Hungary 1956
Bay of Pigs
Prague 1968
Gulf War 1 (when we allowed Saddam to crush the same Shia who now run Iraq)

Why would Iranian insurgents believe us now?

A reality check about those "insurgent" attacks within Iran. The Gateway Pundit link says the attacks were done by a Sunni group.

Iran is 90% Shia and 10% Sunni. Such attacks will make that 90% more loyal to the current Tehran government, not less.

IMHO, as always.

Bill, the point is that a live guy can be, in effect, cross-examined, while a dead guy can't. Whether you do or don't trust our people to interrogate effectively, the opportunity simply wasn't there in your WW2 analogy.

And the fact such an inapt analogy occurred to you so promptly tells me you almost prefer that this guy not be for real.

Smash, grab, and nab should be the watchwords here....break things and hurt people, don't try to occupy or rehab. If we decide to deal with this problem (and we should), it should be made clear FROM THE BEGINNING that the US has no interest in anything in Iran other than removing its ability to menace its neighbors (we can leave the precise definition of that a bit ambiguous in order to retain some flexibility) and that the future of Iran is a matter for the Iranians themselves to decide.

Of course, destroying a few of the mullah's "levers of control" (as well as many of the mullahs themselves) couldn't help but push things in the right direction...

We should be supporting dissidents in Iran and Syria if we aren't already. The best thing that can happen is regime change from the inside. What are the mullahs and baby Assad going to do? Threaten us more?

"It would be nice if it also presaged a more general rebellion within the ranks, and the populace itself."

In all likelihood, the "defector" is simply an agent of an Iranian government faction, and presages nothing in particular. As for the populace rebelling, it simply won't happen--a large minority supports the theocracy with absolute devotion, and most of the remainder are only looking for moderation. Besides, if Iranians did start rejecting fundamentalism, the GOP would change its mind and support the mullahs as a bulwark against secularism.